Corporate Tax Planning and Reporting †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Corporate Tax Planning and Reporting. Answer: Residence and Source The given case study is associated with the residential status of an individual named Kit. The purpose of the study is to determine the employment income which is recognised in form of the salary received from his employment in an Australian based company with an intention to determine the taxation amount. Based on the discourse of the case study although the place of birth of Kit is in Chile, he is a permanent occupant of Australia. He is further seen to hold Chilean citizenship even after being a permanent resident of Australia. Based on the rulings of IT 2650 as stated under ITAA 1997, any Australian individual can be held for assessment for taxation purposes based on worldwide sources (Siahaan 2013). An individual with residents in Australia is seen to regulate temporarily with different types of overseas inhabitants are usually taxed depending on their income level and Australian sources. One of the primary incidences for taxation of income is derived from working people in Australia. The determination of tax liabilities of Kit is observed to be a necessary prerequisite in order to ensure the residency status for tax. As per the discussions of the case study, although Kit is seen to hold a permanent occupancy in Australia, he cannot be considered as an Australian citizen (Coman and Coman 2013). This is due to the reason of holding a Chilean citizenship. In order to determine the taxation situation, the residency status of Kit needs to be ascertained based on the various tests listed below: The main law in establishing the status of residency based on domicile test works as per the rulings given under Domicile Act 1982. Based on the common law, the place of birth is seen to be the original place of domicile. However, this particular consideration is subjected to some exceptions. The rule allows a person to maintain the domicile unless he or she is observed for acquisition of place of abode domicile on their own discretion in any other nation or state. As per the rulings under Henderson v. Henderson [1965] 1 All E.R.179, a person needs to acquire a particular place of abode in their own choice of nation where he or she decides to make their home indeterminately. It has been evident from the present study that, he decided to buy a house in Australia three years ago and resided with his wife and children. This is seen to be primarily satisfying the main motive of Kate in acquiring a place of domicile or permanent destination of abode as per his choice to live in Australia (Wisna 2013). As stated in section 6 (1) of the taxation rulings 2650, the time of the mining the permanent place is seen to be essential in considering the main intent of the individual in order to make the necessary choice of building a home for indefinite period (Anggadini 2015). An individual having a domicile in Australia but staying outside Australia shall be able to retain the domicile stated based on foreseen conditions. In this particular case, despite of Kit being an employee in oil rig of Indonesian coast, he is seen to visit his children and wife. This particular incidence has been considered under section 6 (1) of the ITAA 1936, that; By acquiring a permanent place of abode in Australia Kit has been able to comply with the necessary conditions of holding a permanent residency of Australia. Being living in Australia for more than half of the income year, before being transferred to Indonesia for another job, Kit has been able to satisfy his residency status in Australia and satisfactorily comply with the test of domicile. 183 days test: The conceptualisation of 183 days test states that in case an individual resided in Australia for more than half of the income year either in breaks are in continuous basis then his or her residential status Law will be considered as Australian (Richardson, Taylor and Lanis 2013). Based on the discourse of the case study, as Kit was transferred to Indonesian oil rig coast, he was able to visit his family for one month in every quarter. This adds up to 120 days in a year of his stay within or outside Australia. However, it cannot be ignored that Kit is a permanent resident of Australia and shall be regarded as an Australian occupant as he has purchased a house to live three years ago along with his wife and children. As per the ruling stated under F .C. of T. v. Applegate (79 ATC 4307; (1979) 9 ATR 899, regardless of Kits absence from Australia it cannot be overruled that he had a permanent place of abode based in Australia. The given case study clearly highlights the main intention o f Kit for acquiring a place to stay in Australia and satisfy the test of 183 days. Hence, after consideration of 183 days test and domicile test it can be discerned that Kit is a permanent resident of Australia. It has been considered that the residency of taxpayer links to the foundations of tax liability which is in compliance with the income year. In case the taxpayer is seen to be in conformity with ordinary concepts of residential test, then in that case he or she will be assessed for taxation based on the residency status (Pope and Susila 2014). In this particular case it has received salary from Westpac bank which is regarded as a source of income after entering into an Australian contract as the bank is based in Australia. Hence, his salary is subjected to tax. Moreover, he is also seen to receive a portion of income from the investments made in share portfolio which is also taxable in nature. As per the ruling stated under Applegate per Franki J 79 ATC, Kit is identified to be an occupant of Australia and needs to acquire the worst of income during the time of lodging of income tax along with various types of foreign employment income. The income on in the income year shall be assessed during taxation as the residential test shows, Kit is an Australian resident. Despite of these tests, Kit can consider to avoid any instance associated to double taxation. This can be done by claiming exemption on share portfolio is, since Australia has signed several treaties in more than 40 other nations known for providing relief from cases of double taxation. Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd v Harris (Surveyor of Taxes) (1904) 5 TC 159 The particular case is seen to take into consideration the issues which are associated to realisation of capital asset and determination of disposable income associated to the property. This is to determine whether or not the income from the disposal of the property needs to be exploited for minerals and whether it is further assessable in form of income or capital. The main findings of the case highlighted that taxpayer did not have the sufficient capital commence the business activities necessary to mining. The court has been further seen to give the verdict that the income of 10 from selling off land was assessable, as the individual has obtained profit as a result of selling of the property. The very decision of the court was seen to consider that disposal of the land into account act of trading and did not involve meagre replacement of investments (Devos 2014). As per the discourse of the case, the main concern related to whether the subdivision and selling of land used by the mining company will be considered under assessable income or a meagre realisation of ordinary property. It has been further observed that the taxpayer puts forward this argument by depicting it as a capital obtained in a beneficial manner and profits they are not assessable in nature. On the other hand, the court gave the decision to realise that asset as it constituted the capital account. It further decided to hold the commercial activity of sale of land which was treated after realisation of the capital asset (Kpmg 2014). The aforementioned case is associated to assess whether sale of the subdivided land is capital in nature. Based on the argument, the taxpayer has put forward his statement, which shows that his activities of property realisation and profit should not be held for tax assessment. This case is assessed as stated by Gibbs CJ, Mason, Murphy and Wilson JJ the taxpayer was assessed under section 25 (1) for the income generated from the sale of property. Based on the decision made by the court the taxpayer was identified to carry out commercial activity for land development. Based on the outcome of the income was held for tax assessment as it was complying with the general principles of accounting (Robson 2014). Statham Anor v FC of T 89 ATC 4070 The following case is concerned with issue whether the net income acquired from sale of subdivided property can be considered as income under section 25 (1) or 26 (a). The taxpayer is seen to bring forward the argument stating that deceased never entered in a profitable venture and the land was not making to use for commercial purpose. Based on the judgement given by the court, the subdivision of land showed that taxpayer was not seen to indulge in any sort of profit-making scheme. Henceforth, the extent of realisation of the taxpayer did not take into consideration any commercial activity. However, the scale of realisation is directly related to consider the nature of land which is to be realised (Boulus and Dowding 2014). The aforementioned case is associated to disposal of certain portion of the land which has been assessed under section 25 (1) or 25 A. As per the rulings, the land is not seen to be held for taxation purposes based on the aforementioned sections. As per the decision passed by the Federal Court, it has been seen that the taxpayer did not want to earn any income from disposal of the property. This needs to be held for assessment based on first limb of section 25 A (1). The second limb shows that the sale of land did not took place during the course of business and not considered under profit-making scheme, and there has been no consequences associated to this limb (Richardson, Taylor and Lanis 2015). Moana Sand Pty Ltd v FC of T 88 ATC 4897 The following case deals with determination of income associated to the value received from selling of land as per Section 25 (1) or 26 (a). The main outcomes of this case has been considered under the aforementioned section and is applicable for taking into consideration the sum of $370,000 for taxation as it was received after selling of property. Based on the case of FC of T v The Emporium Ltd 87 ATC 4363 the court passed its verdict by stating under section 25 (1), the profit is seen to be constituted under ordinary income and needs to be assessed for taxation purposes (Taylor and Richardson 2014). The main issue of this case is associated to determination of taxable income for selling of a property near Hobart and the profit derived from the same. The case has been considered under Subsection 25 (1) or sec 26 (a) of the ITAA 1936. The court has been seen to accredit that the outcome of the burden of debt obligated the individual to dispose the land. However, the profit gathered from the commercial activities of that land development was taxable in nature. In addition to this the court stated that the transactions vary according in nature and depicted constant activities of business associated to land development (Taylor and Richardson 2013). This particular case deals with the main concerns of the income which has been derived after disposing property taxable under Section 25 (1). The case subject here seen to be brothers who borrowed loan from bank to pay the tax. The main outcome of the case showed that the venture was formed to execute the various types of business activities and generate the expected income. Based on the rulings of the court, the taxpayer is seen to enter into the commercial undertaking by intentionally entering into activities of land development. Reference list: Anggadini, S. D. (2015) The Effect of Top Management Support and Internal Control of the Accounting Information Systems Quality and Its Implications on the Accounting Information Quality, Information Management and Business Review, 7(3), pp. 93102. Boulus, P. and Dowding, K. (2014) The press and issue framing in the Australian mining tax debate, Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(4), pp. 694710. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2014.948378. Coman, M. and Coman, M. (2013) The Integration of TIC in the Accounting Information System of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Valahia University of Targoviste, 4(2), pp. 715. Devos, K. (2014) Chapter 2: Tax Compliance Theory and the Literature, in Factors Influencing Individual Taxpayer Compliance Behaviour, pp. 1342. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7476-6. Kpmg (2014) Corporate tax rates table | KPMG | GLOBAL, KPMG.com, pp. 15. Available at: https://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx. Pope, J. and Susila, B. (2014) Why the tax compliance costs of large companies in Indonesia are low compared to other countries: empirical evidence, Australian Tax Forum, 29(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2445297. Richardson, G., Taylor, G. and Lanis, R. (2013) The impact of board of director oversight characteristics on corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(3), pp. 6888. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.02.004. Richardson, G., Taylor, G. and Lanis, R. (2015) The impact of financial distress on corporate tax avoidance spanning the global financial crisis: Evidence from Australia, Economic Modelling, 44, pp. 4453. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2014.09.015. Robson, A. (2014) Australias Carbon Tax: An Economic Evaluation, Economic Affairs, 34(1), pp. 3545. doi: 10.1111/ecaf.12061. Siahaan, F. O. . (2013) Standardization Online Accounting System Based on Information Technology, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(12), pp. 270276. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1462439300/abstract/60E4AD989838441APQ/244?accountid=17242%255Cnhttps://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/3140989521/fmt/pi/rep/NONE?hl=information%25252Cinformation%25252Csystems%25252Csystem%25252Csystems%25252Csystem%25252Cin%25. Taylor, G. and Richardson, G. (2013) The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: Evidence from Australian firms, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 22(1), pp. 1225. doi: 10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2013.02.005. Taylor, G. and Richardson, G. (2014) Incentives for corporate tax planning and reporting: Empirical evidence from Australia, Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 10(1), pp. 115. doi: 10.1016/j.jcae.2013.11.003. Wisna, N. (2013) The Effect of Information Technology on the Quality of Accounting Information system and Its impact on the Quality of Accounting Information, Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(15), pp. 22222847.